Merged Things that Bubba finds interesting or newsworthy

Bubba said:
I thought that by definition, introducing a strawman is always less than honest.

Intentional introduction of a strawman seems a measure of character or integrity. No member here would ever do it intentionally of course. Thats why I got to thinking of unintentional strawmen.
Click to expand...

Introductions to the strawman are just proper etiquette.
 
The appearance of a strawman often indicates that the argument is failing.

The farmer brings the straw scarecrow to the field when the crows are eating the hell out of his corn.
 
Of the first few search results rationalwiki is the only one mentioning unintentional strawman. Maybe the others presume all stawmen are woven with ulterior motive.


A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:

Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate
Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well

Unintentional misrepresentations are also possible, but in this case, the misrepresenter would only be guilty of simple ignorance. While their argument would still be fallacious, they can be at least excused of malice.
Click to expand...
 
Bubba said:
I thought it was called sarcasm. I prefer to go with benefit of doubt when the strawman detection alarm bell rings.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who goes headpiece filled with straw every time the Great Wall of Trump is criticized. Just question the logistics and waste of money, and he replies: "Don't you believe a country has the right to control its borders?"
He's not saying this to deceive. He's simply not aware of his fallacy in thinking. Also he has difficulty understanding how he's in error and what the Strawman fallacy means.

Many people kind of drift along with their mental processes without close examination. And you can try to explain to them the disconnect, but if they have an investment in what for them is a moral imperative, a strawman will be an angel.
 
Typically, the presence of a strawman hints that there are lots of vultures nearby.
 
Bubba said:
Surely you have heard of Operation Mockingbird. We were told it was discontinued after it got outed. We were not told whether or not it was re-named and continues to this day.
Click to expand...

I have heard of Operation Mockingbird. I was not aware that any other government apart from the US was involved. I therefore fail to see the relevance to the Edward Heath case.

Do you have any evidence that the operation continued, or is this yet more baseless paranoid speculation?

Cosmic Yak said:
Evidence, please, for this allegation of government-placed "gatekeepers" in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity. Or indeed, for any other purpose.
Click to expand...

Bubba said:
I doubt there is any evidence of "gatekeepers" in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity, like media not reporting JFK's extramarital exploits back then.

I am not btw saying there actually are gatekeepers in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity.

Of course your straw government-placed media pedo protectors never existed. Never will. Thats how good straw is made. Of course there were volunteer pedo protecting gatekeepers back in the day. Could still be.
Click to expand...


Then please explain the relevance of this:

Bubba said:
Then there is the information system's record of reliability, and connections to power to consider. Government has placed agents in gatekeeper positions in media for other reasons, a glimpse of the range of possibilities in one arena of corrupted power, and the black arts of deception.
Click to expand...

If there are no gatekeepers, or they do not protect paedophiles from public reporting, then what was your point here?

You then go on to say there actually were, but volunteers. How did that work, then?
Regarding your continued references to ancient history: are you aware that the world has changed since the 1960's? Are you also aware that reporting of politicians sexual peccadilloes has been a feature of the British press for years? Do the words "Profumo affair" mean anything to you? It also happens in the US. Have you heard of Monica Lewinsky?

Bubba said:
Off topic musing:

I wonder if there is data on what % of strawmen are created unintentionally vs intentionally. I have been in face to face conversations where I was sure some were made unintentionally, which is interesting. Intentionally placed strawmen are easy to understand and not so interesting. The spontaneous unconscious creation of unintentional strawmen is more interesting, IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't know, Bubba. You say there were gatekeepers, and imply they protect child abusers. When called on it, you say there weren't. Then you say there were, but volunteers.
It seems to me, given the inconsistent and contradictory nature of your posts, that it would be quite easy to label any challenge as a strawman, so as to avoid having to back up anything you say. Is this your intention?
 
The structure of the strawman fallacy - that which makes it a fallacy - is independent from the intentions or other mental states of the speaker. It is therefore unreasonable to guess intentions. Strawman is strawman.

In discussions with 9/11 Truthers I often wonder at many fallacies and failures of perception of reality: can thsi be intentional? They MUST sense they are plain wrong!? The only way forward is to point out the fallacy. Not to reprimand the other side for ill intent.

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
 
Oystein said:
The structure of the strawman fallacy - that which makes it a fallacy - is independent from the intentions or other mental states of the speaker. It is therefore unreasonable to guess intentions. Strawman is strawman.

In discussions with 9/11 Truthers I often wonder at many fallacies and failures of perception of reality: can thsi be intentional? They MUST sense they are plain wrong!? The only way forward is to point out the fallacy. Not to reprimand the other side for ill intent.
Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yes, however for future consideration of character and what to expect, it can be useful to know if the speaker is intentionally making up strawmen. My experience is that pointing out the fallacy takes time away from discussion.
 
Bubba said:
Interesting, and more recent. More research will be needed on this

Researchers at Boston University say "The startling global resurgence of pertussis, or whooping cough, in recent years can largely be attributed to the immunological failures of acellular vaccines, School of Public Health researchers argue in a new journal article."

Resurgence of Whooping Cough May Owe to Vaccine’s Inability to Prevent Infections

https://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/09/21/r...-to-vaccines-inability-to-prevent-infections/
Click to expand...

No kidding, Sherlock. Some medical research may be called for. Duh!

In other news, scientists determine that water is wet!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom